MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W111707741

Eros and Thanatos in Anne Hebert and Marguerite Duras: Kamouraska and Hiroshima mon amour

2016· article· en· W111707741 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne Hébert, Marguerite Duras, Hiroshima mon amour, Janis L. Pallister

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Literature and Critical Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHatredAdventurePsychoanalysisMetonymySolitudeLiteratureMovie theaterDeath driveWishPsychologyPhilosophyArt historyArtMetaphorLawTheologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although at first blush these two authors would seem to be sufficiently unlike that comparisons between them would be apt to end in futility, and although, moreover, the two focal works I propose to examine here1 are not even of the same genre Kamouraska is a novel from Quebec and Hiroshima mon amour a cinema scenario from the European continent2 nevertheless I intend to demonstrate that in these two literary masterpieces major struggles between Eros and Thanatos are at work, and that these struggles are in fact the very subject of the two pieces. Eros, we will concede, is, hypothetically, a constructive, unifying and self-preserving principle in the lives of both Elisabeth and Riva as in the lives of all humans. But here this erotic force is undermined by Thanatos, the destructive and reductive principle in their lives, as in ours. These two conflicting yet sometimes collaborating principles are important both in the Surrealist movement (Passeron, 80) to which the two authors are tangentially indebted, and also in modern critical investigation. More importantly they are the stuff of the characters' adventure. Eros will be taken in this present study to include self-love, but also the wish for societal approval as well as sexual urges, among other things; Thanatos will be taken to include self-hatred, solitude, societal disapproval, murder, suicide and war, as well as normal, literal death per se. Major metaphors and metonymies as well as ironic reversals of the two principles will be studied here. The role of oneirism at work in these two authors will also be examined in terms of these two principles. We may first of all observe that in both of these works the erotic past of the two women is on a collision course with the present and is inter-twined with a powerful death-wish, for the outcomes of that past have entrapped both women in a meaningless routine existence from which they seek to escape, even as through an evocation of the traumatic past they seek its very exorcism, through nightmare, self-narration, hysteric

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFrench Literature and Critical TheoryFrench-language works237,207